Archive for July, 2010

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Trial Court Decision Which Enforced Regular Use Exclusion Against Postal Worker

Scott Cooper July 30th, 2010

 

Attached is the link to the Pennsylvania Superior Court opinion from yesterday July 29, 2010 in Dixon v. GEICO where the court reversed the trial court decision which held that the “regular use” exclusion was valid as applied to a postal worker. The trial court enforced the exclusion citing the “regular use” of the postal vehicle in driving it from one place to another after servicing it. John Capek and I argued that the use was not regular and he did not use the vehicle as he desired.

The Superior Court focuses on whether the vehicle:

“must be ‘furnished or available’ for regular use. This implies an understanding with the owner of the vehicle that the insured could use the automobile of the other person at such times as he or she desired, if available.”

Since their was an issue of fact over the amount of use the employee had to the vehicle the trial court order was vacated and remand for a jury to determine the issue.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a19034_10.pdf

Scott B. Cooper

scooper@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

Popularity: 17% [?]

Concerns minimal in Pennsylvania oil spill

admin July 29th, 2010

WHTM reports that concerns over a Pennsylvania environmental hazard are minimal. Seven thousand gallons of gas and diesel spilled into the Juniata and Susquehanna when a fuel tanker truck flipped over and its contents spilled.

Experts report that they do not expect any long-term Pennsylvania environmental hazards. The oil is refined, so it floats on the surface and also disperses quickly.

Read more.

Do you think the company involved in the Pennsylvania oil spill should be held responsible, even though it was caused by a Pennsylvania truck accident?

If you need help with a Pennsylvania environmental hazard, the Pennsylvania environmental hazard attorneys at SchmidtKramer Injury Lawyers can help you.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Accepts Household Exclusion Issue

Scott Cooper July 28th, 2010

Below is the Order granting the Petition for Allowance of Appeal in GEICO v. Ayers from late yesterday where the Supreme Court is going to decide the validity of the household exclusion when an insurance company insures all the vehicles owned by someone who pays for stacking. Therefore, even though the plurality Opinion in Erie v. Baker may have determined most of the issue with different companies involved in house there are still possible valid cases if you have the same company in the house for all vehicles and your client did not reject stacking. No briefing schedule or argument date yet. Judd Crosby represents Ayers and Billy Goodrich, Josh Geist, and I worked on the Amicus in the Superior Court for PAJ.

Scott B. Cooper

scooper@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

July 27, 2010 Allocatur Granted Per Curiam

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2010 the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below.

Does the application of a household vehicle exclusion violate Section 1738 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), where the same insurance company insures all vehicles owned by an insured, and where the exclusion denies inter-policy stacking to the insured who has paid for stacking and has not executed a stacking waiver?

Madame Justice Orie Melvin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Two people killed in Pennsylvania motorcycle accident

admin July 22nd, 2010

Two people were killed when the motorcycle they were on crashed into a vehicle in a Pennsylvania motorcycle accident.

According to the Erie Times-News, the motorcycle was traveling at a high rate of speed at the time of the Pennsylvania motorcycle accident.

Investigators say there was only one person in the other vehicle, and he did not suffer any injuries in the Pennsylvania motorcycle accident.

Read more.

What do you think can be done to prevent Pennsylvania motorcycle accidents?

If you have been injured in a Pennsylvania motorcycle accident, the Pennsylvania motorcycle accident attorneys at SchmidtKramer Injury Lawyers can help you.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Pennsylvania Superior Court Holds That Insurance Company Was Required To Have New Rejection Of Stacking Form Executed When New Vehicle Is Added To Policy

Scott Cooper July 22nd, 2010

On July 21, 2010, the Superior Court issued its opinion in Sackett v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, (link below) which will now be known as Sackett III. The opinion by Judge Allen holds that the Trial Court correctly decided on remand that a vehicle was NOT added under a newly/after acquired vehicle clause in an insurance policy and the insurer should have had the insured sign a new rejection of stacking form, in order for non-stacking to apply when adding an additional car to a two car policy. Then the insured should have received a new stacking rejection waiver when adding a single car to a two car policy.

After Sackett I and Sackett II the Supreme Court remanded this case to the trial court where a nonjury trial was held in the case on October 15, 2008. Victor Sackett (“Sackett”) was seriously injured in a car accident while a passenger in another car. He obtained the third party liability limits and the underinsured motorist (“UIM”) limits on the vehicle he was occupying at the time of the accident. He then sought additional UIM coverage on his own personal policy with Nationwide.

Sackett purchased coverage initially in 1998 with two (2) vehicles and no stacking on the policy. Prior to the accident he added a third vehicle to the policy and no new forms were signed regarding UM or UIM coverage or stacking. Sackett argued that he had stacking since a new rejection of stacking form was not executed when the third car was added.

Adopting the argument made by Ron Bergman, Josh Geist and I, The Superior Court, as did the trial court, writes in its decision that in Sackett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 919 A.2d 194 (Pa. 2007) (Sackett I) the Supreme Court mandated that a new rejection form is required when a new vehicle is added to a policy. However, that holding was only modified in Sackett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 940 A.2d 329 (Pa. 2007) (Sackett II), and states the first Sackett requirement does not apply if a vehicle is added under a newly acquired vehicle clause and such a clause is present under the facts of the case.

Just as the trial court, the Superior Court finds that Sackett did not add any vehicles under the newly-acquired vehicle clause contained in the insurance policy. Additional rejection stacking forms were required under Sackett I, and were not signed. Thus, the Sacketts were entitled to stacking under Sackett I.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a14005_10.pdf

Scott B. Cooper

scooper@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

Popularity: 15% [?]

Accident claims corrections officer

Scott Cooper July 16th, 2010

By Rick Dandes
The Daily Item

MILTON — A Milton man was struck and killed late Thursday afternoon when the motorcycle he was riding crashed head-on into a pickup truck that crossed his path while turning into Becky’s Soft Serve ice cream on Route 405, police said.

State police at Milton said Brett C. Paulhamus, 36, of Milton, riding a 2006 Suzuki C-60, was traveling north on Route 405 in Turbot Township at 4:25 p.m., when a 1995 Chevrolet S-10 pickup, traveling south and driven by Ray E. Rothfuss Jr., 67, of Muncy, attempted to make a left turn into the restaurant. When Rothfuss turned, he came directly into the path of the Suzuki.

According to a police report, Rothfuss slammed on his brakes, trying to avoid the motorcycle, but the motorcycle could not avoid hitting the car.

Paulhamus, who police said was not wearing a helmet or any safety equipment other than glasses, was thrown from his bike and landed on the road.

Northumberland County Coroner James F. Kelly pronounced Paulhamus dead at 4:54 at the scene.

“He died of multiple-force trauma,” Kelley said.

Paulhamus was a sergeant at SCI Muncy and news of his death hit his colleagues hard.

Troy Edwards, who worked with Paulhamus on the prison’s Correctional Emergency Response Team, said Paulhamus was a “consummate professional and a real role model at the prison.”

“He was an outstanding employee,” Edwards said. “He worked his way up to sergeant. He did a good job, and he always volunteered for extra duties. I worked with him on the CERT team. He will definitely be missed.”

Edwards said he would only comment on Paulhamus’s professional life. “I didn’t really know much about his personal life,” he said.

On Paulhamus’s Facebook page, Denise Smith, a friend, wrote: “It is with great and deep sadness to have lost one of our own; a good person and good Sgt. My prayers and heartfelt blessings go out to Brett’s family. He will not be forgotten by his co-workers because United We Stand!!”

Another friend on Facebook, Edward Gusbar, said, ” It’s a sad day today in SCI Muncy land. We lost one of our own. Sgt. P, you will be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

Popularity: 21% [?]

State trooper killed in Pennsylvania auto accident

admin July 15th, 2010

A state trooper was killed in a Pennsylvania auto accident, and The Philadelphia Inquirer reports his blood alcohol content was almost three times the legal limit.

The 48-year old trooper drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic and struck another car, causing the Pennsylvania auto accident. The driver of that vehicle was injured but is in stable condition.

The trooper was set to appear in court this week for charges from a prior drunk driving charge. After that arrest, he had been moved from investigations to a desk job.

Read more.

Do you think the trooper should have been on probation after the first charge of drunk driving?

If you have been injured in a Pennsylvania auto accident, the Pennsylvania auto accident attorneys at SchmidtKramer Injury Lawyers can help you.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Deadly holiday weekend for Lancaster auto accidents

admin July 8th, 2010

Do you think more accidents happen on holiday weekends? That could be the case, as two separate Pennsylvania auto accidents caused fatalities over the weekend.

WGAL reports both victims were in their early 20s. The first Pennsylvania auto accident happened when a female driver lost control of her vehicle and struck a tree. She was thrown from her vehicle. The second accident occurred when a man lost control of his car and struck another vehicle head on. He was pronounced dead at the scene of the Pennsylvania auto accident.

Read more.

The story did not report whether alcohol played a role in either Pennsylvania auto accident. Do you think police road blocks and other preventive measures should take place with more frequency over holiday weekends to prevent Pennsylvania auto accidents?

If you have been involved in a Pennsylvania auto accident, the Pennsylvania auto accident attorneys at SchmidtKramer Injury Lawyers can help you.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That 30 Day Reporting Requirement Of Phantom Vehicle Not Incorporated Into Notice To Insurance Company

Scott Cooper July 7th, 2010

Attached is the link to the majority opinion from July 6, 2010 in Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance Company where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that an insurance carrier is required to prove prejudice relative to the late reporting to the carrier of an accident involving an unidentified vehicle when such an accident was timely reported to law enforcement officials. The majority opinion by Justice Baer (joined by CJ Castille, Todd and McCaffery) decides that the case is controlled by its precedent in Brakeman v. Potomac Ins. Co., 371 A.2d 193 (Pa. 1977) where the Court held that to deny UM benefits an insurer must demonstrate prejudice resulting from the insured’s failure to provide notice and not by its more recent opinion in State Farm Ins. Co. v. Foster, 889 A.2d 78 (Pa. 2005) which involved the mandatory reporting to law enforcement within 30 days of an accident.

The Court observes that Section 1702 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) sets forth and defines the requirements for reporting a phantom vehicle and they cannot be modified by the insurance contract. In this case the Superior Court erred when it held that the insurance company did not need to pay benefits when the claim was not reported until eight months after an accident when prejudice was not established. Therefore, since the accident was reported to law enforcement within 30 days, as required, the decision is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court to determine whether or not the insurance company can establish prejudice.

Justice Eakin (joined by Justice Saylor) dissents and would have affirmed because section 1702 does not contain a prejudice requirement.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-43-2008mo.pdf

Scott B. Cooper

scooper@schmidtkramer.com

717-232-6300

Popularity: 21% [?]

Trial Court Holds Medical Assistance Payments Can Be Recovered In Car Accident Case

Scott Cooper July 2nd, 2010

On March 24, 2010, the trial court in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County denyied the Defendants’ Motion for Post trial relief in Squicquero v. Ross. This case involves a car accident where some of the plaintiff’s medical bills were paid by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). The Defendant argued that under the holding of Tristani v. Richman, 609 F.Supp. 2d 423 (W.D. Pa. 2009) that medical bills paid by DPW were not allowed to be recovered. The trial court rejected this argument and allowed the bills to be introduced. The trial court, in denying the post trial motion, holds that neither the holding in Tristani nor section 1722 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) precludes the plaintiff from recovering medical expenses paid for by DPW. Medical payments paid by DPW constitute payment by a “governmental agency” and not a “program, group contract or other arrangement” and DPW is not a “hospital plan or professional health service corp”. Therefore, the DPW right of subrogation is not taken away by section 1720 of the MVFRL.

For a copy of the trial court opinion please feel free to contact Scott B. Cooper at Schmidt Kramer P.C.

Scott B. Cooper
scooper@schmidtkramer.com
717-232-6300

Popularity: 18% [?]

Next »

 

FreeConsultation